{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"VideoObject","altText":"Press Conference","alternateName":"g6_7iXvRtpzVHlOV.mp4","caption":"Press Conference","contentUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/686/raw","datePublished":"2026-10-29T20:23:54+00:00","description":"Press Conference","encodingFormat":"video/mp4","identifier":"686","isAccessibleForFree":true,"machineReadable":{"json":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/686/index.json","markdown":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/686/index.md"},"name":"Comment attachment by janedoe1","ocrStatus":"not_applicable","ocrText":"","text":"[00:00] Those of you who were in the courtroom, the judge asked a very important question\n[00:04] regarding the other six of the so-called Cornell Seven.\n[00:11] We believe that we have the right to bring this in the name of our client only.\n[00:18] The question of whether or not a official who has already taken a public position is the right\n[00:28] person to restore public confidence in an investigation and a prosecution.\n[00:35] Transcends any one of the seven.\n[00:40] And nonetheless, we're going to go back to our office.\n[00:43] We're going to talk about it.\n[00:45] And it is likely that we will consider joining the others so\n[00:50] they can come and I happen to know most of them will be glad to make\n[00:56] similar arguments to the ones we made. But again, the question I really think transcends\n[01:03] any one person. And the question we all should be asking is, what is the best way for the\n[01:08] public to have confidence in whatever the coming investigation holds? And based on statements\n[01:18] made by the Attorney General prior to her appointment, we believe that she has already\n[01:24] accepted as fact some of the critical elements of Jane Doe's claims.\n[01:30] Why haven't the other six joined you so far?\n[01:33] We haven't asked them candidly.\n[01:35] It is permissive, not to overlaw this conversation, but whether we join other people or not\n[01:41] is permissive, it's not required.\n[01:44] The judge, I see, wants to hear from the other parties and he will.\n[01:49] So you think you will be able to get the other six to enjoy?\n[01:53] I think that we're going to look to get everyone who should be a party to this rejoin.\n[01:59] Have any of them called you about it?\n[02:01] I'm not going to comment on that, but the answer's yes.\n[02:04] Mr. Meltonberg, do you think Judge Farrell asked the government-pointed questions about\n[02:09] the social media post?\n[02:10] I think he did, and I think reading between the lines while he was concerned with us\n[02:15] about the issue of Joinder, I think the judge's questions were fairly clear that\n[02:22] he found the statements that were made by the Attorney General were in core form,\n[02:28] and not well made, and that the real question is not to cause chaos between judges,\n[02:38] not necessarily whether the Attorney General made statements that were proper.\n[02:44] My personal reading of the argument is that he's already decided that.\n[02:48] I think the question is making certain that there is no\n[02:53] chaos between the courts as to who is going forward with the investigation.\n[02:57] And just a bit off topic, my apologies. Were you invited to participate in the\n[03:03] Netflix talk? Did you know about it? So that's you know it's an interesting\n[03:06] question which also brings up the where the states\n[03:13] I'm sorry it also brings up where the state is on this issue.\n[03:17] Apparently, there is a Netflix documentary coming out.\n[03:19] Someone pointed that to me this morning.\n[03:22] Apparently, Kathy Huckle, the governor and the attorney general,\n[03:27] Letitia James, have been interviewed and are taking part in that.\n[03:31] I can tell you confidently that no one in my office or\n[03:37] any of the other defendants' offices has been asked to participate in the Netflix documentary.\n[03:43] So I expect the documentary to be one-sided, salacious.\n[03:49] I'm sure we'll all want to watch it,\n[03:51] but I also know that it won't be the whole truth.\n[03:54] If that is true and they were interviewed,\n[03:56] and suppose the judge ruled against you here,\n[03:59] do you have an opportunity to make another application based\n[04:01] on continuing statements or what they're saying,\n[04:03] or how does that work?\n[04:04] I think that's something we'd have to consider.\n[04:06] I think that it's a that the governor and the attorney\n[04:11] general are on a very slippery slope here and I think continuing statements won't serve them well.\n[04:19] One other question on the jointer issue, contact her or bring in the other six. How does that\n[04:27] complicate or does it complicate defending the civil lawsuit and defending a potential\n[04:32] civil invest criminal investigation? What in essence you have to acknowledge these other people\n[04:37] they're you know maybe it defences that I wasn't there that kind of thing.\n[04:40] So I don't think it prejudices either a criminal investigation or the civil case.\n[04:47] The evidentiary standards in both are different.\n[04:50] And I think that everyone's position of the seven will remain factually consistent with what their experience was.\n[04:59] Remember, there were seven different experiences.\n[05:02] There were seven different claims.\n[05:04] There were seven different results from the Title I hearing.\n[05:09] and bringing them into this matter\n[05:14] on the issue of whether this is the right person\n[05:18] to continue an investigation.\n[05:20] I don't think it will intercede or intersect\n[05:24] with the questions in the civil case in the criminal case.\n[05:28] Is there anything that happened in there that leads you\n[05:30] to believe that criminal charges are more or less likely?\n[05:33] Absolutely not.\n[05:35] I mean, we want, you know, look, a criminal investigation, the integrity of the investigation\n[05:43] begins at the beginning to attempt to address what may be a predetermination after there's\n[05:51] an indictment is something that I can tell you no lawyer would want for their client\n[05:57] nor would I want for any of you.\n[06:00] The time to do that is right now and that's what we're asking the judge to consider.\n[06:03] No, there's no suggestion any more today than yesterday\n[06:07] that criminal investigations are done.\n[06:10] Was today a win for you?\n[06:11] Was today a win for you?\n[06:13] Every day that I wake up and can walk is a win for me.\n[06:16] Was it a win for you on the path to getting a T-shirt J?\n[06:19] I think we have some things to address,\n[06:21] and I think the judge is keyed in on what the issues are.\n[06:24] So we'll be back.\n[06:26] And just in terms of the criminal investigation\n[06:29] and the grand jury, sometimes, if the defense knows\n[06:32] that's going on, you can submit evidence to mitigate that.\n[06:37] And you guys have chosen not to or?\n[06:43] To our knowledge, we have not any notification\n[06:45] of criminal investigation.\n[06:47] Even though Winston Lee's attorney found the judge,\n[06:50] submitted a motion or a petition.\n[06:54] Well, I think Winston Lee's attorney,\n[06:55] I can be wrong, filed a motion.\n[06:57] I don't know that it was based on\n[06:59] that anything's actually going on.\n[07:01] Okay.\n[07:02] Are you confident you'll get the other six to join\n[07:04] if not what happens.\n[07:06] I'm confident that the other six will join\n[07:09] whether they want to or not.\n[07:12] And I think they're going to,\n[07:14] and I think to the ones that may not want to,\n[07:17] the judge will force them to join.\n[07:20] The judge has the power to force them to join?\n[07:22] Yes.\n[07:23] Yes.\n[07:24] As a defendant, that's what I'm saying.\n[07:26] For this application?\n[07:28] Yes.\n[07:29] How would that represent the new application\n[07:31] in the Comfort County?\n[07:33] I do not know. I'm going to have to go back and check the chat sheet.\n[07:37] I'm going to go back to the city now.\n[07:40] Most of you have my cell number. Welcome to call me.\n[07:44] We can discuss it. I have two hours back to the city, but I do have to go.\n[07:48] Thank you so much.","thumbnailUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/686/thumb.webp","transcriptSegments":[{"end":4.48,"start":0.0,"text":"Those of you who were in the courtroom, the judge asked a very important question"},{"end":9.12,"start":4.48,"text":"regarding the other six of the so-called Cornell Seven."},{"end":17.6,"start":11.28,"text":"We believe that we have the right to bring this in the name of our client only."},{"end":28.88,"start":18.96,"text":"The question of whether or not a official who has already taken a public position is the right"},{"end":35.64,"start":28.88,"text":"person to restore public confidence in an investigation and a prosecution."},{"end":40.2,"start":35.64,"text":"Transcends any one of the seven."},{"end":43.76,"start":40.2,"text":"And nonetheless, we're going to go back to our office."},{"end":45.24,"start":43.76,"text":"We're going to talk about it."},{"end":50.72,"start":45.24,"text":"And it is likely that we will consider joining the others so"},{"end":56.44,"start":50.72,"text":"they can come and I happen to know most of them will be glad to make"},{"end":63.24,"start":56.44,"text":"similar arguments to the ones we made. But again, the question I really think transcends"},{"end":68.76,"start":63.24,"text":"any one person. And the question we all should be asking is, what is the best way for the"},{"end":78.16,"start":68.76,"text":"public to have confidence in whatever the coming investigation holds? And based on statements"},{"end":84.12,"start":78.16,"text":"made by the Attorney General prior to her appointment, we believe that she has already"},{"end":90.68,"start":84.12,"text":"accepted as fact some of the critical elements of Jane Doe's claims."},{"end":93.72,"start":90.68,"text":"Why haven't the other six joined you so far?"},{"end":95.96,"start":93.72,"text":"We haven't asked them candidly."},{"end":101.32,"start":95.96,"text":"It is permissive, not to overlaw this conversation, but whether we join other people or not"},{"end":104.08,"start":101.32,"text":"is permissive, it's not required."},{"end":109.12,"start":104.08,"text":"The judge, I see, wants to hear from the other parties and he will."},{"end":113.52,"start":109.12,"text":"So you think you will be able to get the other six to enjoy?"},{"end":119.24,"start":113.52,"text":"I think that we're going to look to get everyone who should be a party to this rejoin."},{"end":121.4,"start":119.24,"text":"Have any of them called you about it?"},{"end":124.52,"start":121.4,"text":"I'm not going to comment on that, but the answer's yes."},{"end":129.4,"start":124.52,"text":"Mr. Meltonberg, do you think Judge Farrell asked the government-pointed questions about"},{"end":130.56,"start":129.4,"text":"the social media post?"},{"end":135.84,"start":130.56,"text":"I think he did, and I think reading between the lines while he was concerned with us"},{"end":142.52,"start":135.84,"text":"about the issue of Joinder, I think the judge's questions were fairly clear that"},{"end":148.68,"start":142.52,"text":"he found the statements that were made by the Attorney General were in core form,"},{"end":158.12,"start":148.68,"text":"and not well made, and that the real question is not to cause chaos between judges,"},{"end":164.76,"start":158.12,"text":"not necessarily whether the Attorney General made statements that were proper."},{"end":168.92,"start":164.76,"text":"My personal reading of the argument is that he's already decided that."},{"end":173.08,"start":168.92,"text":"I think the question is making certain that there is no"},{"end":177.88,"start":173.08,"text":"chaos between the courts as to who is going forward with the investigation."},{"end":183.0,"start":177.88,"text":"And just a bit off topic, my apologies. Were you invited to participate in the"},{"end":186.28,"start":183.0,"text":"Netflix talk? Did you know about it? So that's you know it's an interesting"},{"end":193.4,"start":186.28,"text":"question which also brings up the where the states"},{"end":197.32,"start":193.4,"text":"I'm sorry it also brings up where the state is on this issue."},{"end":199.76,"start":197.32,"text":"Apparently, there is a Netflix documentary coming out."},{"end":202.72,"start":199.76,"text":"Someone pointed that to me this morning."},{"end":207.44,"start":202.72,"text":"Apparently, Kathy Huckle, the governor and the attorney general,"},{"end":211.56,"start":207.44,"text":"Letitia James, have been interviewed and are taking part in that."},{"end":217.4,"start":211.56,"text":"I can tell you confidently that no one in my office or"},{"end":223.8,"start":217.4,"text":"any of the other defendants' offices has been asked to participate in the Netflix documentary."},{"end":229.72,"start":223.8,"text":"So I expect the documentary to be one-sided, salacious."},{"end":231.36,"start":229.72,"text":"I'm sure we'll all want to watch it,"},{"end":234.88,"start":231.36,"text":"but I also know that it won't be the whole truth."},{"end":236.56,"start":234.88,"text":"If that is true and they were interviewed,"},{"end":239.0,"start":236.56,"text":"and suppose the judge ruled against you here,"},{"end":241.56,"start":239.0,"text":"do you have an opportunity to make another application based"},{"end":243.44,"start":241.56,"text":"on continuing statements or what they're saying,"},{"end":244.24,"start":243.44,"text":"or how does that work?"},{"end":246.12,"start":244.24,"text":"I think that's something we'd have to consider."},{"end":251.96,"start":246.12,"text":"I think that it's a that the governor and the attorney"},{"end":259.72,"start":251.96,"text":"general are on a very slippery slope here and I think continuing statements won't serve them well."},{"end":267.56,"start":259.72,"text":"One other question on the jointer issue, contact her or bring in the other six. How does that"},{"end":272.04,"start":267.56,"text":"complicate or does it complicate defending the civil lawsuit and defending a potential"},{"end":276.44,"start":272.04,"text":"civil invest criminal investigation? What in essence you have to acknowledge these other people"},{"end":280.52,"start":277.32,"text":"they're you know maybe it defences that I wasn't there that kind of thing."},{"end":287.52,"start":280.52,"text":"So I don't think it prejudices either a criminal investigation or the civil case."},{"end":290.52,"start":287.52,"text":"The evidentiary standards in both are different."},{"end":299.52,"start":290.52,"text":"And I think that everyone's position of the seven will remain factually consistent with what their experience was."},{"end":302.52,"start":299.52,"text":"Remember, there were seven different experiences."},{"end":304.52,"start":302.52,"text":"There were seven different claims."},{"end":309.52,"start":304.52,"text":"There were seven different results from the Title I hearing."},{"end":314.52,"start":309.52,"text":"and bringing them into this matter"},{"end":318.52,"start":314.52,"text":"on the issue of whether this is the right person"},{"end":320.52,"start":318.52,"text":"to continue an investigation."},{"end":324.52,"start":320.52,"text":"I don't think it will intercede or intersect"},{"end":328.52,"start":324.52,"text":"with the questions in the civil case in the criminal case."},{"end":330.52,"start":328.52,"text":"Is there anything that happened in there that leads you"},{"end":333.52,"start":330.52,"text":"to believe that criminal charges are more or less likely?"},{"end":335.52,"start":333.52,"text":"Absolutely not."},{"end":343.0,"start":335.52,"text":"I mean, we want, you know, look, a criminal investigation, the integrity of the investigation"},{"end":351.36,"start":343.0,"text":"begins at the beginning to attempt to address what may be a predetermination after there's"},{"end":357.68,"start":351.36,"text":"an indictment is something that I can tell you no lawyer would want for their client"},{"end":360.12,"start":357.68,"text":"nor would I want for any of you."},{"end":363.76,"start":360.12,"text":"The time to do that is right now and that's what we're asking the judge to consider."},{"end":367.16,"start":363.76,"text":"No, there's no suggestion any more today than yesterday"},{"end":370.2,"start":367.16,"text":"that criminal investigations are done."},{"end":371.84,"start":370.2,"text":"Was today a win for you?"},{"end":373.12,"start":371.84,"text":"Was today a win for you?"},{"end":376.0,"start":373.12,"text":"Every day that I wake up and can walk is a win for me."},{"end":379.36,"start":376.0,"text":"Was it a win for you on the path to getting a T-shirt J?"},{"end":381.36,"start":379.36,"text":"I think we have some things to address,"},{"end":384.84,"start":381.36,"text":"and I think the judge is keyed in on what the issues are."},{"end":386.92,"start":384.84,"text":"So we'll be back."},{"end":389.44,"start":386.92,"text":"And just in terms of the criminal investigation"},{"end":392.84,"start":389.44,"text":"and the grand jury, sometimes, if the defense knows"},{"end":397.04,"start":392.84,"text":"that's going on, you can submit evidence to mitigate that."},{"end":403.04,"start":397.04,"text":"And you guys have chosen not to or?"},{"end":405.96,"start":403.04,"text":"To our knowledge, we have not any notification"},{"end":407.44,"start":405.96,"text":"of criminal investigation."},{"end":410.2,"start":407.44,"text":"Even though Winston Lee's attorney found the judge,"},{"end":414.2,"start":410.2,"text":"submitted a motion or a petition."},{"end":415.52,"start":414.2,"text":"Well, I think Winston Lee's attorney,"},{"end":417.96,"start":415.52,"text":"I can be wrong, filed a motion."},{"end":419.92,"start":417.96,"text":"I don't know that it was based on"},{"end":421.84,"start":419.92,"text":"that anything's actually going on."},{"end":422.68,"start":421.84,"text":"Okay."},{"end":424.4,"start":422.68,"text":"Are you confident you'll get the other six to join"},{"end":426.4,"start":424.4,"text":"if not what happens."},{"end":429.4,"start":426.4,"text":"I'm confident that the other six will join"},{"end":432.4,"start":429.4,"text":"whether they want to or not."},{"end":434.4,"start":432.4,"text":"And I think they're going to,"},{"end":437.4,"start":434.4,"text":"and I think to the ones that may not want to,"},{"end":440.4,"start":437.4,"text":"the judge will force them to join."},{"end":442.4,"start":440.4,"text":"The judge has the power to force them to join?"},{"end":443.4,"start":442.4,"text":"Yes."},{"end":444.4,"start":443.4,"text":"Yes."},{"end":446.4,"start":444.4,"text":"As a defendant, that's what I'm saying."},{"end":448.4,"start":446.4,"text":"For this application?"},{"end":449.4,"start":448.4,"text":"Yes."},{"end":451.4,"start":449.4,"text":"How would that represent the new application"},{"end":453.4,"start":451.4,"text":"in the Comfort County?"},{"end":457.4,"start":453.4,"text":"I do not know. I'm going to have to go back and check the chat sheet."},{"end":460.4,"start":457.4,"text":"I'm going to go back to the city now."},{"end":464.4,"start":460.4,"text":"Most of you have my cell number. Welcome to call me."},{"end":468.4,"start":464.4,"text":"We can discuss it. I have two hours back to the city, but I do have to go."},{"end":470.4,"start":468.4,"text":"Thank you so much."}],"transcriptStatus":"ready","transcriptText":"[00:00] Those of you who were in the courtroom, the judge asked a very important question\n[00:04] regarding the other six of the so-called Cornell Seven.\n[00:11] We believe that we have the right to bring this in the name of our client only.\n[00:18] The question of whether or not a official who has already taken a public position is the right\n[00:28] person to restore public confidence in an investigation and a prosecution.\n[00:35] Transcends any one of the seven.\n[00:40] And nonetheless, we're going to go back to our office.\n[00:43] We're going to talk about it.\n[00:45] And it is likely that we will consider joining the others so\n[00:50] they can come and I happen to know most of them will be glad to make\n[00:56] similar arguments to the ones we made. But again, the question I really think transcends\n[01:03] any one person. And the question we all should be asking is, what is the best way for the\n[01:08] public to have confidence in whatever the coming investigation holds? And based on statements\n[01:18] made by the Attorney General prior to her appointment, we believe that she has already\n[01:24] accepted as fact some of the critical elements of Jane Doe's claims.\n[01:30] Why haven't the other six joined you so far?\n[01:33] We haven't asked them candidly.\n[01:35] It is permissive, not to overlaw this conversation, but whether we join other people or not\n[01:41] is permissive, it's not required.\n[01:44] The judge, I see, wants to hear from the other parties and he will.\n[01:49] So you think you will be able to get the other six to enjoy?\n[01:53] I think that we're going to look to get everyone who should be a party to this rejoin.\n[01:59] Have any of them called you about it?\n[02:01] I'm not going to comment on that, but the answer's yes.\n[02:04] Mr. Meltonberg, do you think Judge Farrell asked the government-pointed questions about\n[02:09] the social media post?\n[02:10] I think he did, and I think reading between the lines while he was concerned with us\n[02:15] about the issue of Joinder, I think the judge's questions were fairly clear that\n[02:22] he found the statements that were made by the Attorney General were in core form,\n[02:28] and not well made, and that the real question is not to cause chaos between judges,\n[02:38] not necessarily whether the Attorney General made statements that were proper.\n[02:44] My personal reading of the argument is that he's already decided that.\n[02:48] I think the question is making certain that there is no\n[02:53] chaos between the courts as to who is going forward with the investigation.\n[02:57] And just a bit off topic, my apologies. Were you invited to participate in the\n[03:03] Netflix talk? Did you know about it? So that's you know it's an interesting\n[03:06] question which also brings up the where the states\n[03:13] I'm sorry it also brings up where the state is on this issue.\n[03:17] Apparently, there is a Netflix documentary coming out.\n[03:19] Someone pointed that to me this morning.\n[03:22] Apparently, Kathy Huckle, the governor and the attorney general,\n[03:27] Letitia James, have been interviewed and are taking part in that.\n[03:31] I can tell you confidently that no one in my office or\n[03:37] any of the other defendants' offices has been asked to participate in the Netflix documentary.\n[03:43] So I expect the documentary to be one-sided, salacious.\n[03:49] I'm sure we'll all want to watch it,\n[03:51] but I also know that it won't be the whole truth.\n[03:54] If that is true and they were interviewed,\n[03:56] and suppose the judge ruled against you here,\n[03:59] do you have an opportunity to make another application based\n[04:01] on continuing statements or what they're saying,\n[04:03] or how does that work?\n[04:04] I think that's something we'd have to consider.\n[04:06] I think that it's a that the governor and the attorney\n[04:11] general are on a very slippery slope here and I think continuing statements won't serve them well.\n[04:19] One other question on the jointer issue, contact her or bring in the other six. How does that\n[04:27] complicate or does it complicate defending the civil lawsuit and defending a potential\n[04:32] civil invest criminal investigation? What in essence you have to acknowledge these other people\n[04:37] they're you know maybe it defences that I wasn't there that kind of thing.\n[04:40] So I don't think it prejudices either a criminal investigation or the civil case.\n[04:47] The evidentiary standards in both are different.\n[04:50] And I think that everyone's position of the seven will remain factually consistent with what their experience was.\n[04:59] Remember, there were seven different experiences.\n[05:02] There were seven different claims.\n[05:04] There were seven different results from the Title I hearing.\n[05:09] and bringing them into this matter\n[05:14] on the issue of whether this is the right person\n[05:18] to continue an investigation.\n[05:20] I don't think it will intercede or intersect\n[05:24] with the questions in the civil case in the criminal case.\n[05:28] Is there anything that happened in there that leads you\n[05:30] to believe that criminal charges are more or less likely?\n[05:33] Absolutely not.\n[05:35] I mean, we want, you know, look, a criminal investigation, the integrity of the investigation\n[05:43] begins at the beginning to attempt to address what may be a predetermination after there's\n[05:51] an indictment is something that I can tell you no lawyer would want for their client\n[05:57] nor would I want for any of you.\n[06:00] The time to do that is right now and that's what we're asking the judge to consider.\n[06:03] No, there's no suggestion any more today than yesterday\n[06:07] that criminal investigations are done.\n[06:10] Was today a win for you?\n[06:11] Was today a win for you?\n[06:13] Every day that I wake up and can walk is a win for me.\n[06:16] Was it a win for you on the path to getting a T-shirt J?\n[06:19] I think we have some things to address,\n[06:21] and I think the judge is keyed in on what the issues are.\n[06:24] So we'll be back.\n[06:26] And just in terms of the criminal investigation\n[06:29] and the grand jury, sometimes, if the defense knows\n[06:32] that's going on, you can submit evidence to mitigate that.\n[06:37] And you guys have chosen not to or?\n[06:43] To our knowledge, we have not any notification\n[06:45] of criminal investigation.\n[06:47] Even though Winston Lee's attorney found the judge,\n[06:50] submitted a motion or a petition.\n[06:54] Well, I think Winston Lee's attorney,\n[06:55] I can be wrong, filed a motion.\n[06:57] I don't know that it was based on\n[06:59] that anything's actually going on.\n[07:01] Okay.\n[07:02] Are you confident you'll get the other six to join\n[07:04] if not what happens.\n[07:06] I'm confident that the other six will join\n[07:09] whether they want to or not.\n[07:12] And I think they're going to,\n[07:14] and I think to the ones that may not want to,\n[07:17] the judge will force them to join.\n[07:20] The judge has the power to force them to join?\n[07:22] Yes.\n[07:23] Yes.\n[07:24] As a defendant, that's what I'm saying.\n[07:26] For this application?\n[07:28] Yes.\n[07:29] How would that represent the new application\n[07:31] in the Comfort County?\n[07:33] I do not know. I'm going to have to go back and check the chat sheet.\n[07:37] I'm going to go back to the city now.\n[07:40] Most of you have my cell number. Welcome to call me.\n[07:44] We can discuss it. I have two hours back to the city, but I do have to go.\n[07:48] Thank you so much.","url":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/686"}